§ Order for Committee read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 5 (Power of Governing Bodies to alter their Constitutions).
§ MR. NEWDEGATE moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 38, to leave out "sixty-nine," and insert "seventy," in order to prolong the powers of the existing governing bodies to the 1st of January, 1870, instead of to the 1st of January, 1869. The 1st of January, 1870, was the date fixed by the other House; and he thought that six months, during which the country would be disturbed by a General Election, was too short a term of existence for governing bodies against whom no complaint had been made.
§ Amendment proposed in page 2, line 38, to leave out the word "sixty-nine," and insert the word "seventy,"—(Mr. Newdegate,)—instead thereof.
§ MR. POWELLsaid, the Select Committee on the Bill had not thought it desirable to continue the powers of the governing bodies for a long period, notwithstanding the arguments pressed on them by the hon. Gentleman. It was thought desirable that the period of suspense should be as short as possible. The only function of the existing bodies would be that of suggesting who should be their successors; and as there was power of prolonging their existence for another three months, he contended that nine months would allow them ample time to prepare a scheme. Some of them, indeed, were already engaged in the task. He hoped the House would sustain the decision of the Select Committee upstairs, so as to enable the schools to have at the earliest possible period a permanent governing body, which would carry out the reforms so much needed.
MR. KARSLAKEsupported the Amendment, thinking that his hon. Friend (Mr. 1925 Newdegate) asked very little in demanding that the present governing bodies should discharge their duties for another year.
§ MR. NEATEsaid, that the mistake which was made throughout the Bill was in confounding the governing body of these schools, who knew little or nothing about them, with the Master and Fellows of the Colleges of the University, who really were the governing bodies of the Colleges. The recommendations of the Select Committee were unanimously made, and he hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEprotested against the hon. Member's assertion that the governing body of Rugby, of which he was a member, knew little about the School. The evidence taken before the House of Lords would show that this was a total, entire, and gross mistake. The governing bodies resided within a limited distance of the School, and met four or five times to consult about its affairs. But the object clearly was to get rid of their interference altogether.
§ MR. NEATEcomplained of the words "grossmis-statement" as un-Parliamentary. The evidence in regard to Rugby was that the regulations of the School were in practice delegated to the Head master; that the interposition of the governing body was unusual, and the present Head master said he could call to mind no instance of such interposition within his experience.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the word he used was "mistake," He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the functions of the governing body of Rugby were no sinecure.
§ MR. LIDDELLsaid, that the "governing body" of Eton had been the Provost, and he, in his desire to extend and improve the School, had obtained large dispensing-powers from the visitor in regard to the interpretation of the statutes. The bursar was strongly in favour of running out the leases, and he therefore claimed for the governing body of Eton the desire of improving and extending the benefits of that School. He had much greater confidence in the present governing body than in the body of Commissioners proposed by the Bill. He would certainly support his hon. Friend's (Mr. Newdegate's) most reasonable and sensible proposition to give at least a little time to those governing bodies to look round them, undisturbed by those external influences which had been referred to, before that alteration of the statutes 1926 which appeared to be so much desired by the House.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHdescribed the legislation which had taken place in respect to our Universities and schools as hap-hazard. He thought that there was really only a nominal distinction between the present governing bodies and those which it was proposed to substitute for them. Another anomaly in regard to that Bill was that it was treated as a Government Bill, although, if any Government was really responsible for it, it was not the present, but the late Government. It was a mistake to deal in that way with a measure of that kind, which ought to be left to the free judgment of the House.
§ Question put. "That the word 'sixty-nine' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 25: Majority 84.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 6 (Governing Body to make Statutes, under Restrictions).
§ MR. NEWDEGATE moved the omission of the word "new" in line 10; his object being, he said, to leave the existing governing bodies as unfettered in the right of making suggestions to the Commissioners as the bodies by whom they were to be succeeded would be.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 10, to leave out the word "new."—(Mr. Newdegate.)
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, that alteration was, in point of fact, an attempt to renew the discussion which had already taken place on the Motion of his hon. Friend on another clause; and, if successful, would leave everything in a state of uncertainty.
§ Question put, "That the word 'new' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 9: Majority 124.
§
MR. J. LOWTHER moved to leave out in page 3, line 28, the words of the 3rd section—
With respect to the privileges and number of boys who, under any Statute or Benefaction, may be entitled to any rights to education or maintenance.
The object of those words was to enable the choristers of Westminster Abbey to be introduced into Westminster School; and the authorities engaged in education
1927
at Westminster School were of opinion that such an arrangement would not work, for the hours at which the choristers were required to attend in the Abbey would preclude them from following the course of education in the School. If it were suggested that the choristers had a claim under statute to be provided with education, he could only say that such a claim was not supported by the Royal Commission. They had no more right than the Chapter tenants.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought that many Members who voted in the last division were not aware of the effect of the votes they gave, and therefore he wished to know whether, under the words introduced into the 5th clause, power would be preserved to the existing governing body to make recommendations with respect to boys on the foundation, for the 1st section of the present clause appeared to give that power only to the new governing body?
§ MR. WALPOLEexplained that the existing governing bodies were empowered to make statutes for the constitution of the new governing bodies, and the power was conferred on the new governing bodies, and on them alone, to make the statutes for the future regulation of the schools.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was most anxious to have the matter properly cleared up; because he was at a loss to understand what the governing bodies of Rugby and Harrow had done that an Act should be passed incapacitating them even to recommend statutes with respect to the future constitution of the schools.
§ MR. ACLANDsaid, he confessed he did not exactly understand this very complicated Bill. He wished to know whether the statutes referred to in Clause 6 were to be permanent or distinguishable from the other statutes and regulations to be passed at the end of next year.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, the clause embodied that class of statutes which were likely to be permanent for the regulation of the schools.
§ MR. BENTINCK,being responsible for the proposal made before the Committee with reference to the education of the choristers, was bound to say, in reply to the observations of his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Lowther), that the Committee had been unanimous on the subject, which his hon. Friend would find by referring to the Report of their proceedings. His hon. Friend did not seem to have informed himself as 1928 to the true facts of the case. He compared the choristers with the sons of tenants of the Chapter estate, but there was no analogy between them whatever. Under the statutes, as soon as a chorister had learnt the different parts of speech he was entitled to free education in the School, or to be placed under the master. The education now received by the choristers was given in a species of national school, to which parents were disinclined to send their sons, and was not by any means equal to what was provided for others maintained on the same principle. The provision in this clause was entirely permissive. There was no obligation on the governing body to introduce the choristers into Westminster School; but he did not see why they should not have the power, if they thought fit, to put these boys under the superintendence of the masters. The hon. Member was wrong in assuming that the masters at Westminster were opposed to this provision. The condition of these boys at Westminster was most unsatisfactory, and would be greatly improved by this provision being carried into effect. He opposed the Amendment.
§ MR. J. STUART MILLearnestly hoped that the Committee would not adopt the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for York. One of the most scandalous abuses connected with endowed schools was that the endowments intended for the education of children of parents who could not afford to pay for their education, had been in fact confiscated for the benefit of those who could afford to pay for it. Whether this was a case of the kind he did not know; but it appeared that the choristers and the sons of the tenants of the Dean and Chapter had some rights by virtue of the old endowment. The clause did not define their rights, or state whether such rights existed; it merely gave the governing body the power to consider whether such rights existed, and to take measures with respect to them. The subject had attracted the attention of the working classes themselves. To his own knowledge there had been formed in the North of England an association of the working classes to obtain a restoration of their rights—he would not say in Westminster School particularly—but in endowed schools generally. Unless means were taken to deal with this question by a measure of wider extent, the feeling amongst the working classes would grow 1929 much stronger, and the House might expect to hear a great deal more of it. It was not merely that there were rights, but the rights were known by the persons for whose benefit they were created. The House would do well to give to the authorities who were to make the now statutes the power of considering this matter amongst others.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEopposed the Amendment. The clause was merely permissive, and put it in the power of the governing authorities to make the best provision they could for these boys. When the matter was brought before the Public Schools Commission they were of opinion that it was not desirable to attempt to force these boys into the School but that some other provision should be made for them, by apprenticing them, or otherwise providing for them at the expense of the funds of the School. He hoped that the clause would be retained in the Bill.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEhoped that the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) would not persist in pressing his Amendment.
§ MR. MARSHobserved that the foundations at Westminster had always been open to competitive examination, and therefore could not be regarded as the exclusive right of any particular class.
§ MR. J. LOWTHER,in reply to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) that the clause was permissive, stated that it was for that reason that he objected to it. The words of the clause were vague and unmeaning, and might contain a great deal more than appeared on the face of them. The proposition, if carried, would re open a controversy that had lasted for many years, and would leave to the new governing body a damnosa hœreditas. An hon. Member had complained that he had not brought down the Latin statutes of that House; but the fact was that he had quoted from the Report of the Royal Commission.
§ MR. ACLANDconcurred in the proposal for separating the seven schools mentioned in the Bill from the question of the general grammar schools of the country; but, at the same time, he entreated the Committee not to place the inhabitants of Westminster, Eton, and Winchester in a worse position for the sake of the higher education which it was desirable should be maintained in these schools. The House would not be acting justly towards the 1930 artizans and small farmers if some portions of the rich foundations of these schools were not made available for the education of their children.
§ MR. LOCKEbegged to read the following extract from one of the statutes:—
The choristers shall go to our school that they may gain a, proficiency in grammar, and remain there for at least two hours and be taught by the master.That clearly showed that these boys should, to all intents and purposes, be placed in the same position us the scholars of the Westminster School. He did not see why these scholars should be entirely of the richer class. They were established for all classes—rich and poor. It would be unfair and unjust, and at variance with the foundations themselves, to appropriate these schools only to the rich. He should give his support, therefore, to that portion of the clause as it stood; but whether it was sufficiently definite he could not say.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. ACLANDrepeated his suggestion with regard to the propriety of making provision for the establishment of third-rate schools.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought it was rather inconvenient in the middle of the discussion on this clause to raise such a question. If any proposition of the kind were made he was sure the Committee would consider it.
MR. KARSLAKEsuggested that by referring to part of Clause 7, the hon. Gentleman would get an answer to his question.
§
MR. NEATE moved in page o, sub-section 7, at end, to add—
And in the case of Eton and Winchester Colleges, with respect to future income and all other, emoluments of the future provost and fellows and the future warden and fellows, and with respect to the number, emoluments, and advantages to be hereafter enjoyed by all the members of each foundation, or by those now entitled to any payment thereout, and subject thereto, for the establishment or foundation of some other College or School in connection with Eton and Winchester Colleges respectively, and subject to the same governing body as the College in each case.
§ MR. WALPOLEexplained that he had himself prepared an Amendment in reference to the same point; but confessed, if it were at all necessary—which he doubted—that he would prefer his hon. und learned Friend's provision to the one he had prepared himself. The matter was complicated, and he should like to 1931 confer with the draftsman before he finally adopted it. He therefore proposed to postpone it on the understanding that it should be again brought before them on the Report.
§ MR. WHITBREADprotested that nothing had been said with reference to the poor foundations. He was sure that when these schools were placed under the new governing bodies, large bodies of boarders and foundationers could not exist together, but the rich boarders would gradually eat up the foundationers. He hoped care would be taken to prevent such an evil.
§ MR. AYRTONwas about to address the Committee, when
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, that to put himself in Order he would re-move the clause, for the reason that he doubted whether the clause that had been put on the Paper by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) would cover the whole ground covered by the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate). The clause contemplated the continuance of the objectionable governing bodies of Eton and Winchester, whereas the proper manner of dealing with the subject would have been to consider how they could have been abolished. They were Colleges only in the sense of gathering together half-a-dozen idle, useless people, who are maintained at the public expense. In conclusion the hon. and learned Member re-moved the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, on the ground that it would be difficult to deal with Eton and Winchester in the manner proposed in the same Bill that had reference to schools differing from those named in the proposed clause. If the Question was postponed to the time when the Report was brought up they would have an opportunity of having the clause better considered.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he wished to impress upon the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), who had charge of the Bill, the importance of the suggestion that had 1932 been made by the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Acland). The schools whose case they were considering differed from schools generally, in that they were schools intended for the purpose of imparting the highest class of education; and no one supposed that this either ought to, or need be given to the whole of the children of the working or lower middle classes. But, on the other hand, the élite of those classes had a right to claim that that sort of education should be afforded to them. To those who are most proficient in the lower grades of education, the next highest ought to be opened at the expense of the magnificent endowments for educational purposes in this country. As ibis was a matter of great importance, requiring to be carefully considered, not so much by the House as by the body the House was about to create, he hoped the Committee would not predetermine that no part of those great endowments should be appropriated to the purpose of providing the higher kinds of education for such persons as those to which he had referred.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, that one of the great advantages which these schools had conferred upon the people of this country had been that they had furnished opportunities to the children of those classes to obtain the benefits of this higher education; and some of the most distinguished men who had been educated at these schools had sprung from the middle classes. The regulations under the 12th clause indicated the intention of the Committee in that respect by giving facilities to other than boarders to attend the schools and participate in the education given therein.
§ MR. ACLANDsaid, it would be easy to accomplish what was wished. It had been shown that the conduct of a perfect school for the upper, lower, and lower-middle class would cost £300 a year, and it was not much to ask that this should be paid out of the magnificent sum of £20,000 at the disposal of the country for educational purposes.
§ MR. LIDDELLsaid, that, so far as Winchester College was concerned, any boy could obtain admission, no matter what his social position, provided he could pass a competitive examination.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 7 (Consolidation and Amendment of existing Statutes and Regulations).
1933§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the clause would give the new governing body and the Commissioners the power to consolidate and amend statutes enforced whether by Act of Parliament, charter, or other instrument; and he wished to point out that, taken in conjunction with Clause 20, a very novel precedent would thereby be set, by which an unknown number of Acts of Parliament might be repealed by Order in Council, merely on condition that the scheme for doing so was laid before Parliament for a certain time, without the attention of Parliament being necessarily called to it. He also wished to remind the Committee that the Bill provided no compensation, for the rights of which the lower, middle, and labouring classes were about to be deprived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
§ Clause 12 (General Power to make Regulations),
§ SIR HARRY VERNEY moved, in page 7, line 11, after "given," to insert "and whether it is desirable that the Head master should keep a boarding house."
§ MR. WALPOLEopposed the Amendment as being incongruous with the language and general structure of the clause.
§ MR. ACLAND,having been in the Head masters house at Harrow, bore testimony to the advantage arising from Head masters keeping boarding houses.
§ SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 13 (Appointment of Masters).
COLONEL SYKEScomplained that the physical sciences are not more extensively taught in our public schools.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 14 (Scheme for Harrow and Rugby).
MR. KARSLAKErose to move the omission of the words relating to Harrow, in accordance with which the governing body of that School would be empowered to submit to the Commissioners a scheme for appropriating a suitable part of the revenues of the foundation to the promotion of education within the parish of Harrow, in the shape, if deemed expedient, of providing for the maintenance of a separate school. The hon. and learned Gentleman contended that it was contrary 1934 to law that the revenues which had been appropriated by John Lyon for the foundation of a grammar school should be diverted to a totally distinct purpose; and he entirely concurred with those who thought it desirable that those great foundations should be made as far as possible available for middle-class education; but then the combined effect of the 6th and 10th clauses would, in his opinion, do all that was necessary in that respect. Let everything he done to ameliorate those foundations and to extend their objects; but it was not right to take a school such as John Lyon founded and cut it into two, thereby departing from the intention of the founder. In making these observations, he believed that he expressed the opinions of the inhabitants of the locality. He had here a letter of the Vicar of Harrow, who coincided in the views of those who wished to see Harrow School modified lo meet the requirements of the time, having a lower form, with power to the pupils of that form to rise to the higher ranks of the School, but who did not desire to see a lower school established separate from the present School. If once the House adopted the principle that they might entirely upset the intentions of the founders it would be impossible to say where they could stop. He entreated hon. Members to be merciful to Harrow School, which certainly had a fair claim to the sympathy of both sides of the House, having educated a great number of Members, and among them two Prime Ministers. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving in page 8, line 18, to leave out from commencement to line 41, relating to Harrow School, and make the formal alterations consequent on leaving out such part of clause.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, he believed the fact to be that, as regarded Harrow, no tradesman or farmer there had sent his son to that School for thirty years. The object of the clause was not to take away the educational privileges of the lower classes, of which they at present did not take advantage, but to give them a school better suited to their station in life, and which would be better adapted to their educational wants. Under the present law, the privileges of Harrow were considerably abused. Parents who were not connected with the locality went to Harrow and located themselves there solely with the view of getting a cheap high-class education for their sons, although 1935 they were perfectly able to pay in full for that education. The clause was designed to mitigate that evil, and by way of compensation to the lower classes it was proposed to establish another school for them. There was great difficulty in combining a day school with boarding, and the system was not found to be in accordance with the best interests of the school. The objection raised to the alteration proposed by the trades people of Harrow and Rugby was contained in the last words of the memorial referred to by the hon. and learned Member—it would tend to the depreciation, of their property; in other words, they were afraid their houses would not let so well if there was not this migration from London to obtain a gratuitous education.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he had possessed the advantage of having been what John Lyon had termed a "foreigner" at Harrow, and he was inclined to think that the views of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester and those of his right hon. Friend the Member for London were not so incompatible. On the one side was the undoubted fact that John Lyon had intended his foundation primarily for the inhabitants of Harrow itself; and, on the other, the fact that those educational advantages were abused by reason of the cause just mentioned, Harrow having, in consequence of improved communication—and specially, thanks to the London and North Western Railway—for some time past laboured under what was the misfortune in one point of view and the advantage in another of having virtually become a suburb of London. Building operations had gone on extensively at Harrow; part of the advantage being the cheaper education which John Lyon's foundation afforded to residents. To call that a gratuitous education was an exaggeration; for, although the Head master's fee was excused, the payment to the tutor continued; but it was certainly cheaper, and it was taken advantage of by many who ought to blush for shame Still there were poor gentlefolk—widows and others of very limited means—who in the exercise of the highest common sense, amounting almost to a Christian virtue, went to Harrow in order to send their children to the School. It was difficult to draw the line; and each case must be dealt with for itself. Again, there was the case of the tradespeople, who looked to Lyon's foundation as a 1936 means of obtaining a commercial education, and, at the same time, to not losing the prestige of their connection with the old and famous School. He could not say that John Lyon would not have sympathized with their appeal. The promoters of the clause argued that the people who so went to live at Harrow were not its genuine inhabitants. But is it certain that Lyon himself would not have hailed the material improvement and enlargement of the town as a result of his foundation? It is certain that he left the larger portion of his property to mend the roads between Harrow and London, and unfortunately only a driblet to the School itself. There was something to be said on this side of the case, and there was also something to be advanced on the other side, which had been brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Karslake). Looking at the matter in all its lights, he would not say that the present use of John Lyon's benefaction was such as he himself would have repudiated, though it was to be deplored that boys were sent to Harrow who could afford to pay the fees of the Head master but did not do so. Generally, then, he thought it was a case, not for an inflexible regulation such as the clause proposed, but for investing the Head master with wide discretionary powers. He was as anxious as anyone to see the lower "English" school well established; but he thought that it ought to be a subsidiary portion of the great foundation and not a smaller and independent one. This end would be attained by the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, and in a still more compendious way by that of the hon. Viscount the Member for Middlesex. For his own part, he thought the best way out of the difficulty would be to establish minor or commercial forms, and to give the Head master the absolute discretion of sending the town boys either to the higher or the lower forms, according to the facts of each application. He thought, moreover, that power should be given to the Head master to admit the sons of decayed gentlemen to the higher class education should he deem it prudent or desirable that such should be done. This would, of course, test the bonâ fides of each ease; for the master could refuse the benefits of the cheaper classical education whenever the parent was clearly capable of paying the ordinary fees, while the meritorious poor boys could be let in. It would, at the 1937 same time, quite silence the sentimental grievance which, backed as it was by a clause for substantial advantages, might otherwise become trouble some. Moreover, the claim as it stood had the disadvantage of making the master of the proposed new school independent of the Head master of the old one. It required but little knowledge of human nature to see how likely this would be to create jealousy and disputation. On the whole, then, he would advise the promoters to withdraw the clause, and see if some arrangement could not be reached. The question could be brought up again on the Report.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, that the real question was, whether the endowments should be allowed to be kept for the wealthier classes of society, or not, and whether children of the poor should be deprived of the education intended by the founder? Then came the question, how the clause affected a large class of persons who did not wish their sons to have a high classical education; but who were nevertheless reluctant to give up any privileges they had at present? He could not understand why the operation of the clause should be confined to Harrow and Rugby. If they were to finally dispose of the funds of the founders they ought to have regard to the rights of the boys in the district. It appeared to him that the clause was intended to restrict the advantages of the schools to the wealthier classes. The proper mode of treating the clause was to make it not special, but general, so that some part, at least, of the endowments might be made available for the benefit of all classes of society living in the neighbourhood of the schools.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was anxious that Rugby should be included in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Karslake). The founder of Rugby, Lawrence Sheriff, in tended that all classes of persons in and around Rugby should participate in the benefits of the School, and by his will expressly provided against the separation of classes. The sons of the poor of Rugby had frequently risen to eminence in consequence of the education they had received at the School; and the inhabitants of that town joined in the prayers of the people of Harrow that their children might not be deprived of the advantages to be obtained at that School. The present system avoided the separation of classes; it encouraged the settlement in the town of 1938 retired officers and others, who sent their sons to the School and watched over its social welfare, and it enabled poor boys of talent to rise to a higher position. He hoped, therefore, that Rugby would be included in the Amendment, as the case was stronger even than that of Harrow.
§ MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he believed the inhabitants of these towns greatly prized the privileges they at present possessed, and thought the Committee should hesitate to curtail them.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEremarked, that if the clause were omitted the Commissioners, or the new governing body, would have ample powers, under previous clauses, to proceed in the way directed by it. The only object of the clause was to give them precise directions, instead of leaving the matter to their discretion. The Public School Commissioners recommended that, in consideration of the change of circumstances, the exclusive privileges enjoyed by the residents of Harrow and Rugby should be curtailed, and that, as some compensation, provision should be made for their benefit. Now, their recommendations had been embodied in the Bill with the intention of benefiting this class; but as it appeared that they not only were not grateful for it, but were inclined to oppose it, he thought the wisest course would be to abstain, on this as on other points, from giving precise directions, and to intrust the Commissioners and new governing bodies with wide powers. It would then be open to them to consult the inhabitants of these places, and ascertain what was the best and most acceptable scheme. A noble Lord opposite (Viscount Enfield) had suggested a lower, instead of separate school, and this raised a very important question; but he doubted whether it could be so well considered by Parliament as by the Commissioners, He would suggest, therefore, that the early part of the clause should be withdrawn or negatived, retaining the proviso at the end for the preservation of the rights of persons now living.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE,as a representative of the county in which Harrow was situate, thought the suggestion just made by the right hon. Gentleman eminently satisfactory. The clause was introduced for the benefit of the tradesmen of Harrow, but they did not like it, and said they did not want it.
§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he was opposed to all restrictions.
§ VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) would be eminently satisfactory to the inhabitants of Harrow.
MR. KARSLAKEsaid, that there was a decided objection on the part of the inhabitants of Harrow to the establishment of a new school. He had no objection to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
§ Clause 15 (Saving of Rights).
§ MR. ACLANDsaid, he would be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) that the Commissioners would have power to establish subordinate schools.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, he could not then give an off-hand opinion in answer to the question.
§ Clause added to the Bill.
§ Clause 16 (Appointment of Commissioners).
§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEE moved that the clause be postponed. There were certain Gentlemen who were upon every Commission, and a little change was wanted.
§ MR. AYRTONwished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to insert any other names?
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it might happen that one of the Gentlemen nominated might not like to serve; but it was not thought desirable at present to propose any additional names.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) represented the views of a great number of persons on education, and it was desirable to have the right hon. Gentleman of the Commission.
§ MR. LOWEsaid, he was much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the compliment, but he would much rather be excused.
§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsuggested that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not like the Gentlemen with whom he would be associated. Perhaps if the Committee put in the names of some of the same kidney he might accept.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member who moved the postponement of the clause (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) would not press his Motion, because the Committee would not thereby get an inch nearer. If it were thought necessary to add other names it would be 1940 better to propose them; but it would be invidious and almost dangerous to discuss the names now proposed one after the other. There were Gentlemen on the Commission who represented science, as well as the public schools.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREregretted that the right hon. Member for Calne declined to serve on the Commission, because he spoke real sound common sense on the subject of education, and would put an end to that system of teaching nothing but Latin and Greek, which made such ignoramuses of them all.
MR. KARSLAKEsuggested the name of the junior Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) as an acquisition to the Commission.
§ MR. POWELLsupported the Commission proposed in the Bill, as being constituted in a wise and liberal spirit.
MR. DARBY-GRIFFITHobjected to the practice of leaving measures to be carried into effect by Commissioners.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, that as no Notice had been given of any Amendment in that clause, it was hardly possible to discuss the propriety of any alteration in it without having some specific proposition brought before them. He thought the body of Commissioners proposed by the Bill would meet with the general concurrence of the House and the country. If, however, the composition of the Commission as proposed was not deemed satisfactory by any hon. Gentleman, it seemed to him that any Amendment had better be brought forward after Notice. He would venture to suggest that they should pass the clause, and if anybody had any name which it was thought desirable to add to the Commission it might be properly considered on the Report.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, it would place Members of that House in an invidious position if the duty of proposing names were thrown upon them. The duty properly devolved upon the right hon. Gentleman opposite of proposing names which might be deemed on the whole satisfactory. The first name contained in the clause was that of the Archbishop of York, who was chosen, he supposed, to preserve inviolable the Church of England 1941 character of the schools, which no doubt he would do with all the zeal and dignity that belonged to his character and his sacred calling. Then, the second name was that of the Marquess of Salisbury, a party I man of such strong Conservatism that he would not associate with the present Government on account of its Liberal tendencies. If, however, the Government acted fairly they would have also added the name of some eminent Member of the, other House who was known and admired for his Liberal views. The nomination of one Gentleman from each side of the House of Commons was a fair selection as far as that House was concerned; but it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman himself to re-consider that matter, and to propose a name or names.
§ MR. ACLANDthought that no substantial objection had been urged against the composition of the Commission, and hoped the Committee would support the Government in the proposal which they made.
MR. GLADSTONEexpressed his concurrence with the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) in the opinion that it was not desirable an individual Member of the House should take upon himself the responsibility of naming a Gentleman to be placed upon the Commission; because what they had to look at was not merely the qualities and characteristics of an individual considered alone but the manner in which he entered into the composition of the Bill as a whole. It was only the framers of the Bill who could, he thought, take the initiative in that respect with advantage. He therefore was opposed to any vague postponement of the clause, which could lead to no practical good, and which might have the effect, at this period of the Session, of preventing; the passing of a measure which, it must; be admitted, would on the whole accomplish a very great and important change. The Commission was not, so far as he could see, in any way open to the charge of having been constituted with anything like palpable unfairness; and he should, under these circumstances, give his support to the proposal of the Government. The political element seemed to be fairly balanced.
§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEEargued in favour of the postponement of the clause in order that the composition of the Commission might be more fully discussed. He should like to know how many of 1942 those Gentlemen whose names were proposed as members of it were remarkable for their Ritualistic tendencies. He did not see that the Noblemen and Gentlemen named in the Bill were more fit to perform, the office of Commissioners than many others who could be named.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 140; Noes 2: Majority 138.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.